At 1945 retired U. S. Army Col. Daniel Davis presents a view of the Russian-Ukrainian War that may surprise many Americans, particularly those sitting in Washington, DC—the Russians are winning. After outlining the history of the conflict to date, he describes the present status:
Russia appears to be using tactics that mimic what worked for them in Mariupol: surrounding a city with ground troops, cutting off Ukrainian forces’ ability to get reinforcements (or food, water, and fuel), then relentlessly pounding Ukrainian positions with artillery, rocket fire, and airstrikes, progressively shrinking the ring around the city.
Eventually, Russian troops move in with infantry and armor to strike the defenders when they are at their weakest, capturing the city. The pattern has proven effective and is presently being reprised in numerous Ukrainian strongholds in the Donbas. Russia’s strategy in the Donbas is coming into sharper relief with the capture of each major town, and it doesn’t bode well for Kyiv.
There is a pocket-forming around the Ukrainian troops in the northern shoulder of the Donbas. Russia is seeking to surround the UAF troops in this pocket by saturating key Ukrainian strongholds with heavy bombardment, attempting to peel off more cities on the outside of the pocket, progressively forcing UAF defenders either further west – or trapping them in the pocket and then destroying them by fire and later ground troops.
After taking Izyum, Popasnaya, and moving on Severdonetsk, Russia is now heavily investing Lysychansk, Kramatorsk, and Slaviansk, each a city of 100,000 or more. There are tens of thousands of Ukraine’s best, most experienced troops manning the frontlines in the Donbas. If Russia successfully takes enough cities there, cutting the UAF troops off, they can reprise their bloody tactics used to destroy Mariupol.
offering this disquieting assessment:
Whether Putin has enough troops, ammunition, and time to complete the destruction of the UAF positions in the Donbas without mobilizing some portion of its reserve forces is an open question. What is clear, however, is that Russia’s current operations are slowly strangling Ukrainian troops in the Donbas and that despite optimistic rhetoric out of Kyiv and Western capitals, the battle is trending towards a Russian tactical success, possibly within two months.
Militarily speaking, there is very little hope that even all the promised support of heavy weapons and ammunition from the West can be delivered to the front, the Ukrainian troops adequately trained, and firepower brought to bear in time to change the course.
He also thinks that both Ukrainian and Western leaders’ public statements are misleading their respective publics. He concludes:
Gambling that current battlefield trends don’t hold, hoping that Ukraine can hold on in the Donbas, and believing that UAF will eventually drive Russia back to its country, do the people of Ukraine a disservice. Even if it works out that way – an improbable prospect – it would take years to accomplish and result in such a staggering loss of Ukrainian life that it would be a pyrrhic victory. The better course is to engage in negotiations to do whatever it takes to end the fighting, end the killing of Ukrainian people, and hasten the day when rebuilding can start. However, continuing to base policies on pride and hope will almost certainly cause thousands more preventable deaths in Ukraine.
which should look familiar to regular Glittering Eye readers. My highest concern after the “thousands more preventable deaths in Ukraine” is that panic-stricken Western leaders, taken by surprise by increasingly brutal and destructive advances by the Russians will do something hasty and foolish.
Did anyone really think Russia would not ultimately prevail? And yes, your previous observation was spot on.
Its always been about the cost of the campaign, and what the ongoing residual resistance will look like down the road.
I have never been as negative about Ukraine’s political leadership as some. On blogs other than this one I have actually defended that leadership from unfounded attack.
But I also wouldn’t underestimate the possibility they might act in a way not in the country’s best interests if the West applied enough pressure.
Continuing the discussion about the leaks on transfer of intelligence to Ukrainians. This article was interesting;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/11/ukraine-us-intelligence-sharing-war/
The key quote is this one — “Information about the location and movements of Russian forces is flowing to Ukraine in real-time, and it includes satellite imagery and reporting gleaned from sensitive U.S. sources, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the cooperation.
“The intelligence is very good. It tells us where the Russians are so that we can hit them,†one Ukrainian official said, using his finger to pantomime a bomb falling on its target.”
A careful parsing of the article would point the sources as likely being (1) Ukrainian officials and (2) Pro-Ukrainian government officials that feel free to make policy and not merely execute it.
The rest of article is meant to reassure that there are rules to prevent unintended escalation but it would take some gullibility that anyone, especially Russians would believe there are rules or think it would work.